One Microsoft executive is rather ticked at sneaky users and their "hacks".

In an openly sarcastic blog entry, Microsoft's Eric
Ligman tore into users who have been exploiting a workaround to allow a Vista upgrade
to install on a computer that did not previously have a Windows OS, such as a
new PC. Ligman, Microsoft's senior manager of community engagement for
small business in the U.S., had no sympathy for these users, who he labels as
"clueless" criminals.

While many noted that the OEM version of Vista tended to be cheaper, the
upgrade version did have some advantages, in that you could switch between
32-bit and 64-bit versions (OEM only allowed one specific OS), it had a more
flexible license allowing easier reinstalls, and it could be found at
significantly cheaper if you were a student.

In the Windows Secrets newsletter early this month,
Associate Editor Scott Dunn asserted that he believed that Microsoft
purposefully left the loophole open to encourage savvy users to adopt
Vista. Said Dunn, "the fact that the upgrade back door is still
present in Vista SP1 is a strong indication that the feature has at least the
tacit support of Microsoft officials."

In his blog Ligman offers up a raving retort, arguing:

So if you see anyone stating, or writing, that buying an
upgrade by itself (Windows Vista Upgrade for instance) without having a full
license first gets you the rights to run the software, just realize that what
the person is actually stating is, “I clearly have no clue what I am talking
about and so I am writing a bunch of gibberish that proves this hoping people
will think I have a clue, even though I obviously don’t.

If they continue to tell you that, “But I can get it to physically install, so
it must be legal,” this further shows their complete lack of comprehension.
Just because something will install does not make it legal. For example, a
pirated piece of software will (usually) physically install; however, running
pirated software is 100% illegal (and who knows what else it will install
on or do to your computer). If you don’t believe me, try calling
888-NO-PIRACY and letting them know that you are running pirated software
throughout your company. Explain to them that you feel it is legal to do so
because you got it to physically install, so it must be legal and ask if they
would mind auditing your company to verify the legality of this. Let me know
how that turns out for you.

In order
to clarify for "clueless" readers, Ligman offers the shortened explanation
on the legality of the upgrade workaround using only three letter words or
shorter-- "It is not ok to do so. It is BAD to do so."

Ligman encourages users to voice their anger against the "pirates"
who have been exploiting the upgrade "hack". He also encourages
his readers to play advocate and inform news publications that have been
writing about the workaround that what they are "encouraging" is
wrong or illegal.

While Ligman wants to blame the users and the journalistic community for what
he says is unlawfulness, many think the blame rests with Microsoft for not
providing clear enough licensing terms and information. Among the
supporters of this philosophy is Paul DeGroot, an analyst with Directions On
Microsoft. DeGroot stated, "Many corporate customers still think
they can buy bare PCs and image them with volume media."

DeGroot also blasts that Microsoft won't allow users to transfer installs
between computers on some version, stating, "The prohibition against
moving it to another computer is counter-intuitive for most people, and it
smacks of revenue maximization rather than reasonable restriction."

Ligman's rant is not unfamiliar territory in the tech industry. From Steve
Ballmer and Steve Jobs
to Mark Cuban
and Michael Bay, it seems these days nobody is afraid
to opine on tech topics, and oft sarcastically and noisily at that.

Comments

Threshold

Username

Password

remember me

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Then just use the "loophole" method to do a clean install. As long as you have an eligible license for a previous version, and you don't use that license after the upgrade, you don't have anything to worry about.

The reason they changed it was so that people couldn't borrow a friend's disc to "prove" that they were eligible just to save some money. It makes it harder for the people who aren't eligible to do this upgrade, it won't affect most civilians (who would most likely just be upgrading from their current install no matter how the upgrade process is), and it is still possible for eligible people to do a clean install.

Would you rather spend around an hour of your life doing the installation process again, or pay more money for a full version? I think most people would rather do the installation twice. You can always do something else while that is happening.